Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romántico (film)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Speedy Keep (WP:SK) as the nominator has withdrawn the AfD, and the article's subject is clearly notable. (Non-admin closure) Johnsemlak (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Romántico (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Non-notable. Though, it can be found on Google there is little information on the movie available online or on its Wikipedia article. Whenaxis (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see below where the nominator has very recently and quite graciously reversed his decision.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep since the film's Rotten Tomatoes page has plenty of newspaper reviews to establish notability. The fact that the article doesn't contain much information is not a reason for deletion in itself. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I completely agree with the above. Endofskull (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and close With respects, the nominator droped the ball. This documentary indeed has coverage, and the article is emminently expandable with what is so easily available.  How could he possibly have missed finding the article about this film in The New York Times?  Or the article about the film in San Francisco Chronicle?  Or the one in La República?  Or the one in El Universal? Or the one in Village Voice?   Or the one in Rebelion.org?   Or the one in La Jornada?   Or the article in Slant (magazine)?   Or the later DVD review in Slant (magazine)?  I suggest a quick close and let's get to work on improving the improvable stub article.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum Since opining above, I have spent a little time expanding and sourcing the article. Adding to the ones mentioned in my "keep" above, additional articles and reviews for continued work on this article are available at LA Weekly, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, New York Daily News, New York Post, Boston Globe.Chicago Reader, Film Threat, Variety, and more.  WP:HEYMANN anyone?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Overturn and Closing The article in question that I nominated for has been improved and there are many resources out there that I was not able to found at the beginning. I apologize for all the unnecessary effort to find information, though, it did improve the article. A special thank you to User:MichaelQSchmidt. Whenaxis (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes my google-foo kicks into high gear, :)  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.